Certainly it is no coincidence that Jesus taught in the Book of Mormon the following:
"For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." (3 Nephi 11:29-30)
The passage in the Book of Mormon is quite plain and direct, and certainly in harmony with the messages that he shared famously in his sermon on the mount:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven..." (Matthew 5:38-45)
Jesus seemed clear that people probably should not participate in arguments or contentions. That having been said, he was himself a target of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees that dominated religious thought in Galilee and Judea during his mortal life. The gospels are filled with accounts of the various attempts that were made to argue against Jesus. The truth is, as much as he talked about the vices of pride and wrath that are so easily stimulated by arguments, Jesus was really really good at arguing.
One example was the group of Pharisees that thought they could trap Jesus by asking whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. If Jesus were to say it was lawful, they could attack his popularity because Roman occupation was despised by the Jews. If he were to say it was not lawful, they could report him to the Romans for sedition. His response was perfect:
"Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:19-21)
Jesus gave the perfect answer. By asking about the image on the coin, those that had thought they could trap him were forced to portray themselves as having overlooked something obvious. Additionally, he could not be accused of sedition, nor could his piety be questioned by suggesting that people give to Caesar what is his and to God what is his.
Sadducees attempted to attack Christ's affirmation of the resurrection with a hypothetical situation:
"Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:24-32)
In this case, he showed his amazing ability by ignoring the hypothetical situation which was a distraction from the real point of whether or not there would be a resurrection of the dead. Though they had come to attack his views for something they felt was inconsistent, he was able to counter by identifying their own inconsistency.
On another occasion, enemies tried to trap him by asking Jesus the source of his authority. If he were to say God, they would accuse him of blasphemy (even though it was true). If he were to say some other source, they could accuse him of being a false prophet. He took the advice that he had given in his sermon on the mount when he said:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6)
Instead of answering the question they posed, he posed a similar question to them:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." (Matthew 21:24-27)
His enemies were never able to win an argument with him, so in the end, they paid Judas Iscariot to betray him so they could secretly arrange for his death. Ironically, they were not able to surprise him or beat him even with their murderous conspiracy, as Jesus raised himself from the dead.
Back to the subject of arguments, there are some that may wonder why Jesus even participated in verbal contests when he seemed so against them. The effort to understand why he debated those that tried to trap him is fundamental to understanding the responsibilities of all Christians to defend the truth, and balancing that with the need to show respect and kindness to all of God's children.
Modern prophets and apostles have encouraged participation in discussions about the church:
"There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches. While some conversations have audiences in the thousands or even millions, most are much, much smaller. But all conversations have an impact on those who participate in them. Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time." (M. Russel Ballard http://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/07/sharing-the-gospel-using-the-internet?lang=eng)
In spite of the possibility that disagreements or contentions may arise, or the fact that the internet is crawling with trolls that, like the Pharisees of old, feel satisfaction in discrediting, angering, and bullying others, Christians have a responsibility to help others both by charitably imparting of their tangible substance, and by sharing the good news that Christ is alive and has power to save us all. That having been said, there are lessons to learn from the methods used by Christ himself for dealing with trolls.
Many people that attack Christians do so based on the idea of logical arguments. A logical argument is like a house where the roof represents a conclusion or premise that is supported by walls representing supporting evidence or reasons. The basic idea behind attacking a logical argument is that if all or many of the supporting reasons are eliminated, the conclusion falls just as if the walls of a house are knocked down or weakened, the roof falls.
This concept is important for many discussions, such as jury deliberations where the conclusion of the defendant's guilt is dismissed when reasonable doubt knocks down or weakens the evidence that supports the conclusion. As important as critical thinking techniques are in making some decisions, matters of philosophy, ethics, and faith are not always best served by such techniques.
An example of this can be seen in the following hypothetical situation:
There is a Christian that believes in God, and that the Bible represents the word of God. He has friends that are historians that have informed him about evidence that supports his belief in that ancient Biblical cities are mentioned in archaeological artifacts. A skeptical friend finds that the mention of these cities can be explained by the fact that the Bible was written centuries later and used the names of old cities to appear to be of ancient origin. Because there is no other tangible evidence of the Bible's authenticity that the Christian is able to enumerate, the skeptic explains that there is no reason for him to believe in the Bible.
Obviously, belief in God and the Bible does not need to be based on tangible evidence. It is based on faith. Consequently, when the supporting evidences of religious conclusions are attacked, their is an invisible pillar in the center that prevents the conclusion from falling. Since a person of faith does not need tangible evidence to support their conclusion, exposing reasons or evidence of belief to those that might attack it is like casting pearls before swine. Conclusions of faith such as those that God lives, that the Bible is accurate, and that prophets dispense the truths of heaven to mankind are not conclusions that require logical defense, so do not provide them.
Secular conclusions on the other hand do require logical and tangible justification. It is typically easy to discern a person who is genuinely interested in faith from one who is genuinely interested in destroying faith by asking them to defend their philosophical and ethical positions. Since such positions put them in a position of vulnerability, they will try and evade, stall, or shift the burden of proof to you. Individuals that are genuinely interested in conversation will not maneuver you into positions where you may look bad. Ending a conversation is not the same as conceding an opponent was correct. If an attacker refuses to expose their reasoning, it might be wise to do as Christ did when he was pressed on the source of his authority and follow suit.
Avoiding contention does not necessarily mean avoiding pointing out flaws in reasoning. Jesus was not afraid to tell people that they were acting hypocritical, or to condemn incorrect principles. Going back to the example where Christ countered the Sadducees regarding their misunderstanding of the resurrection, it is good to use critical thinking to examine the integrity of secular conclusions. Particularly in matters of ethics, few secularists have examined their views. In recent conversations I have had for example, secularists claimed that their ethical behavior was guided by the principles of "empathy and compassion." It does not take much critical thinking to show that these principles fall apart when administering justice. If a person does not want to be held against their will, empathy and compassion tell them that imprisoning others even if they are guilty of heinous crimes is unethical. Relativists that believe something is good only because an individual or group has labeled it good strip themselves of moral judgement entirely. If something is bad because a person does not like it, then that puts bad acts such as child molestation on equal moral ground as having to eat vegetables. The need for God in ethics is something I have previously touched on in this post.
Christianity assumes that humanity consists of more than animals with a large number of adaptations making survival easier... The assertion is that people are the children of Almighty God. From the perspective of the Mormon church, we assert that each human being lived before they came to earth with our Heavenly Father, and that after we die, we will return to face him, and be held accountable for our choices. The understanding that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent is fundamental to our faith. With that understanding, context is added to the story of the creation of the earth. A being with tremendous power went to a lot of trouble to send us to a place where we would not remember him and where we could not typically see, hear, or tangibly perceive him. He did not completely abandon humanity though, and provided spiritual sources for learning truths. The environment created was brilliant in its design since it truly imparts free will to men. The choices and desires of every human are not compelled by the Heavens.
Another assertion made by most Christians is that all human beings are given something to help them identify and recognize good and truth. The conscience is sometimes referred to as the light of Christ in accordance with the description of the Apostle John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:1-9)
People have a general understanding of how to perceive good. They have an instinct that draws them toward God in some fashion. While no one follows their conscience perfectly, and while there are some that rarely use it, it is capable of being as recognizable as the image and superscription on a coin. Just as Jesus was not afraid to point out to his attackers what they should have already noticed, so should those that defend faith in Christ be willing to point out that people are already capable of recognizing truth without dependence on tangible evidence. Like recognizing a scent, people know instinctively when something is right. With regular, diligent use, anyone is capable of recognizing the truths of God and his Christ. Odds are, any individual that attacks faith knows in their heart that they are wrong. Even if they do not know it, they are still the person that will be most persuasive in convincing themselves that they should have faith.
The responsibility of Christians to invite all to come to Christ is not a policy to hunt down antagonists and attempt to humiliate them. It is a policy of spreading the good news of Jesus. Christ proclaimed the truth to all; his religion was his identity. The same should be the case for those that aspire to be called Christians.
When a discussion moves to become antagonistic, affirm the truth and end the discussion. Endless bashing between individuals is at best a waste of time, and at worst, could tragically turn a friend into an enemy. In persuading others to accept Christ, Christians must not abandon his teachings. In the end, what made Christ so good when he contended with those that sought to malign him was his ability to know when not to contend, and when to step away.
Winning a petty argument is meaningless since everyone will eventually agree. In the end, Jesus will come in triumph and glory. He will be the hero that appears in the moment of peril and despair to save his people. Every knee will bow before His Majesty. The good news is that he wants everyone on his side.
This concept is important for many discussions, such as jury deliberations where the conclusion of the defendant's guilt is dismissed when reasonable doubt knocks down or weakens the evidence that supports the conclusion. As important as critical thinking techniques are in making some decisions, matters of philosophy, ethics, and faith are not always best served by such techniques.
An example of this can be seen in the following hypothetical situation:
There is a Christian that believes in God, and that the Bible represents the word of God. He has friends that are historians that have informed him about evidence that supports his belief in that ancient Biblical cities are mentioned in archaeological artifacts. A skeptical friend finds that the mention of these cities can be explained by the fact that the Bible was written centuries later and used the names of old cities to appear to be of ancient origin. Because there is no other tangible evidence of the Bible's authenticity that the Christian is able to enumerate, the skeptic explains that there is no reason for him to believe in the Bible.
Obviously, belief in God and the Bible does not need to be based on tangible evidence. It is based on faith. Consequently, when the supporting evidences of religious conclusions are attacked, their is an invisible pillar in the center that prevents the conclusion from falling. Since a person of faith does not need tangible evidence to support their conclusion, exposing reasons or evidence of belief to those that might attack it is like casting pearls before swine. Conclusions of faith such as those that God lives, that the Bible is accurate, and that prophets dispense the truths of heaven to mankind are not conclusions that require logical defense, so do not provide them.
Secular conclusions on the other hand do require logical and tangible justification. It is typically easy to discern a person who is genuinely interested in faith from one who is genuinely interested in destroying faith by asking them to defend their philosophical and ethical positions. Since such positions put them in a position of vulnerability, they will try and evade, stall, or shift the burden of proof to you. Individuals that are genuinely interested in conversation will not maneuver you into positions where you may look bad. Ending a conversation is not the same as conceding an opponent was correct. If an attacker refuses to expose their reasoning, it might be wise to do as Christ did when he was pressed on the source of his authority and follow suit.
Avoiding contention does not necessarily mean avoiding pointing out flaws in reasoning. Jesus was not afraid to tell people that they were acting hypocritical, or to condemn incorrect principles. Going back to the example where Christ countered the Sadducees regarding their misunderstanding of the resurrection, it is good to use critical thinking to examine the integrity of secular conclusions. Particularly in matters of ethics, few secularists have examined their views. In recent conversations I have had for example, secularists claimed that their ethical behavior was guided by the principles of "empathy and compassion." It does not take much critical thinking to show that these principles fall apart when administering justice. If a person does not want to be held against their will, empathy and compassion tell them that imprisoning others even if they are guilty of heinous crimes is unethical. Relativists that believe something is good only because an individual or group has labeled it good strip themselves of moral judgement entirely. If something is bad because a person does not like it, then that puts bad acts such as child molestation on equal moral ground as having to eat vegetables. The need for God in ethics is something I have previously touched on in this post.
Christianity assumes that humanity consists of more than animals with a large number of adaptations making survival easier... The assertion is that people are the children of Almighty God. From the perspective of the Mormon church, we assert that each human being lived before they came to earth with our Heavenly Father, and that after we die, we will return to face him, and be held accountable for our choices. The understanding that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent is fundamental to our faith. With that understanding, context is added to the story of the creation of the earth. A being with tremendous power went to a lot of trouble to send us to a place where we would not remember him and where we could not typically see, hear, or tangibly perceive him. He did not completely abandon humanity though, and provided spiritual sources for learning truths. The environment created was brilliant in its design since it truly imparts free will to men. The choices and desires of every human are not compelled by the Heavens.
Another assertion made by most Christians is that all human beings are given something to help them identify and recognize good and truth. The conscience is sometimes referred to as the light of Christ in accordance with the description of the Apostle John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:1-9)
People have a general understanding of how to perceive good. They have an instinct that draws them toward God in some fashion. While no one follows their conscience perfectly, and while there are some that rarely use it, it is capable of being as recognizable as the image and superscription on a coin. Just as Jesus was not afraid to point out to his attackers what they should have already noticed, so should those that defend faith in Christ be willing to point out that people are already capable of recognizing truth without dependence on tangible evidence. Like recognizing a scent, people know instinctively when something is right. With regular, diligent use, anyone is capable of recognizing the truths of God and his Christ. Odds are, any individual that attacks faith knows in their heart that they are wrong. Even if they do not know it, they are still the person that will be most persuasive in convincing themselves that they should have faith.
The responsibility of Christians to invite all to come to Christ is not a policy to hunt down antagonists and attempt to humiliate them. It is a policy of spreading the good news of Jesus. Christ proclaimed the truth to all; his religion was his identity. The same should be the case for those that aspire to be called Christians.
When a discussion moves to become antagonistic, affirm the truth and end the discussion. Endless bashing between individuals is at best a waste of time, and at worst, could tragically turn a friend into an enemy. In persuading others to accept Christ, Christians must not abandon his teachings. In the end, what made Christ so good when he contended with those that sought to malign him was his ability to know when not to contend, and when to step away.
Winning a petty argument is meaningless since everyone will eventually agree. In the end, Jesus will come in triumph and glory. He will be the hero that appears in the moment of peril and despair to save his people. Every knee will bow before His Majesty. The good news is that he wants everyone on his side.
